Republican drive to end social programs UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Charles_Main]

The Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Now I like for the Republicans and Tea bastards to prove that social welfare programs are unconstitutional and to justify voting and lobbying eliminate them. One good example in Social Security although there are others.

Asswipe. Social security is not social welfare. You must pay into it to get it. Welfare is when you get something for nothing which is probably what you are used to doing and hence your outrage that it may stop for you. Sucks to be you donut?

Um who's the asswipe. Almost half of every dollar paid out by SS goes to someone who has received or will end up receiving more than they paid in.

SS was suppose to be a pay as you go program. However in practice it is not.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

What do you mean HUH?

If you can justify using "promote the general Welfare" in the preamble of the Constitution, how can you justify this part of the preamble "insure domestic Tranquility."

You're confusing my interpretations of the Constitution with those of Fisher Ames.

No I am not confusing it with anyone.

You're confusing Fisher Ames' interpretation of "promote the general welfare" in the preamble with mine. Fisher interpreted it to grant Congress power over the general welfare, but I don't.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

I want to know how you can justify one part for government control and obamacare and negate the other part "insure domestic Tranquility."

I don't do that, dude.

The federal government is not insuring tranquility when over half of America is so pissed off. With the growth of the federal government Obama has create.

That's debatable.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What do you mean HUH?

If you can justify using "promote the general Welfare" in the preamble of the Constitution, how can you justify this part of the preamble "insure domestic Tranquility."

You're confusing my interpretations of the Constitution with those of Fisher Ames.

No I am not confusing it with anyone.

I want to know how you can justify one part for government control and obamacare and negate the other part "insure domestic Tranquility."

The federal government is not insuring tranqility when over half of America is so pissed off. With the growth of the federal government obama has create.

Why did you reeply twice seperating my reply? Mickyt? Keep them together in the same post

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Now I like for the Republicans and Tea bastards to prove that social welfare programs are unconstitutional and to justify voting and lobbying eliminate them. One good example in Social Security although there are others.

You seriously think they meant the kind of Welfare we talk about today.

All I know is that if we adhere to the rules of construction, the term "general welfare" means "happiness of many people."

If that is true then why did they not have any welfare programs at all, and continued not to have any for Decades?

The people didn't demand them.

Promote the General Welfare in that context simply means Promote the general Well being of the country.

If we adhere to the rules of construction, the term "general welfare" means "happiness of many people."

Besides it is in the PREAMBLE you do know what that is right. It is simply stating why they were doing what they were doing. Not what they were doing.

In Article One Section Eight, you will find that Congress is granted power to tax and spend to provide for the general welfare.

 

[Godboy]

The Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Now I like for the Republicans and Tea bastards to prove that social welfare programs are unconstitutional and to justify voting and lobbying eliminate them. One good example in Social Security although there are others.

It amuses me when dumb fucks like you pretend to know whats unconstitutional, especially when you are so obviously wrong about it.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

You're confusing my interpretations of the Constitution with those of Fisher Ames.

No I am not confusing it with anyone.

I want to know how you can justify one part for government control and obamacare and negate the other part "insure domestic Tranquility."

The federal government is not insuring tranqility when over half of America is so pissed off. With the growth of the federal government obama has create.

Why did you reeply twice seperating my reply? Mickyt? Keep them together in the same post

I deny everything, I admit nothing and I want a lawyer.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No I am not confusing it with anyone.

I want to know how you can justify one part for government control and obamacare and negate the other part "insure domestic Tranquility."

The federal government is not insuring tranqility when over half of America is so pissed off. With the growth of the federal government obama has create.

Why did you reeply twice seperating my reply? Mickyt? Keep them together in the same post

I deny everything, I admit nothing and I want a lawyer.

LOL

 

[The T]

The Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Now I like for the Republicans and Tea bastards to prove that social welfare programs are unconstitutional and to justify voting and lobbying eliminate them. One good example in Social Security although there are others.

Promoting the general welfare is great as long as the programs established do what they are supposed to do and dont get out of control......like they usually do.....

And USUALLY for the power of the Politician and it ends up as a weapon against those it was intended to serve.

It's all wrong. And people need to start taking responsibility for their own lives and CEASE being LEECHES.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Now I like for the Republicans and Tea bastards to prove that social welfare programs are unconstitutional and to justify voting and lobbying eliminate them. One good example in Social Security although there are others.

Promoting the general welfare is great as long as the programs established do what they are supposed to do and dont get out of control......like they usually do.....

And USUALLY for the power of the Politician and it ends up as a weapon against those it was intended to serve.

It's all wrong. And people need to start taking responsibility for their own lives and CEASE being LEECHES.

T now that is some good stuff.

 

[Charles_Main]

I just love It when people point to the preamble as if it proves anything. The preamble is nothing more then a list of reasons why they were creating the constitution. It is not the rights and laws it creates.

And as I said when they wrote it Welfare did not have the same meaning it has today.

According to the dictionary

1.
the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society.
2.
welfare work.
3.
financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government: Thousands of jobless people in this city would starve if it weren't for welfare.

When they wrote it they meant the first definition. Not Direct Welfare. Which is why for Several Decades this country had absolutely NO form of Direct Welfare aide. The people relied solely on Charity for that.

 

[saveliberty]

While preambles may be regarded as unimportant introductory matter, their words may have effects that may not have been foreseen by their drafters. For instance, it is on the basis of the preamble to the French Constitution, mentioning the solemn regard of the French Republic towards the principles set forth in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen that the Constitutional Council has declared certain laws to be unconstitutional (the first case being decision 71-44DC).

In Canada, the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 was cited by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Provincial Judges Reference, to increase guarantees to judicial independence. In India, the Supreme Court frequently rules unconstitutional amendments which, violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution, especially its Preamble. The Bosnian Constitutional Court, particularly citing the case law of the Supreme Court of Canada, also declared that the provisions of the preamble of the Bosnian Constitution are invested with a normative force thereby serving as a sound standard of judicial review for the Constitutional Court.

Preamble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A preamble is meant as a general statement, so specifics like the Bill of Rights or Articles would be considered more binding.

Preamble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Charles_Main]

While preambles may be regarded as unimportant introductory matter, their words may have effects that may not have been foreseen by their drafters.

That is certainly true, but that does not mean it is what the Founders intended.

believe me they did not intend to give people a blanket excuse for any and all welfare programs. Like I said if they did then why did we not have any welfare at all in this nation for Decades after its ratification.

Because it took that long for people to twist their words to say what they wanted.

 

[saveliberty]

While preambles may be regarded as unimportant introductory matter, their words may have effects that may not have been foreseen by their drafters.

That is certainly true, but that does not mean it is what the Founders intended.

believe me they did not intend to give people a blanket excuse for any and all welfare programs. Like I said if they did then why did we not have any welfare at all in this nation for Decades after its ratification.

Because it took that long for people to twist their words to say what they wanted.

Absolutely, it was not the Founders intent. They certainly expected the Articles and Bill of Rights to bear the weight. In fact, perhaps it has been mentioned already, but without the Bill of Rights, the Constitution would probably not be our Constitution. It was essential to passage that federal powers be limited by these documents. A point missed by our liberal friends here.

P.S. Hey libs, if you just were more honest and informed, I wouldn't have to whack you like this. Thanks for the fun anyways.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A word from Ben

Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday and St. Tuesday, will soon cease to be holidays. Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.

Benjamin Franklin letter to Collinson, May 9, 1753

 

[bigrebnc1775]

old ben was a smart man maybe he will share some more words of wisdom with us?.... Ben

Strangers are welcome because there is room enough for them all, and therefore the old Inhabitants are not jealous of them; the Laws protect them sufficiently so that they have no need of the Patronage of great Men; and every one will enjoy securely the Profits of his Industry. But if he does not bring a Fortune with him, he must work and be industrious to live.

Benjamin Franklin, Those Who Would Remove to America, February, 1784

 

[bigrebnc1775]

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
-Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 15:332

 

[bigrebnc1775]

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”
-John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

 

[bigrebnc1775]

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

 

[SuMar]

No, ending these programs would be constitutional...

That's not true...Nice try though.